4 HGVs
34. There is evidence that heavy goods
vehicles (HGVs) are disproportionately involved in fatal collisions
with cyclists: some 20% of cycling fatalities in the last five
years involved HGVs, despite the vehicles only accounting for
5% of motor traffic.[88]
This disproportionate effect was in even greater evidence in London,
in which the vehicles were involved in 37% of cycling fatalities
since 2009, despite accounting for just 3% of motor traffic on
the roads.[89] Construction
vehiclesparticularly concrete or tipper lorrieswere
viewed as the most likely to be involved in such collisions. We
heard that seven out of nine fatal collisions in London between
cyclists and large good vehicles in 2011 involved construction
vehicles.[90] The record
varied between companies: while some, including CEMEX had adopted
best practice around cycle safety, we heard that a minority of
companies were "cutting corners" when it came to safety.[91]
35. We received a number of suggestions
on how to reduce the number of collisions between HGVs and cyclists.
One proposal was for the Bikeability scheme to include "the
experience of sitting in an HGV cab
so that cyclists can fully appreciate
the extent of
blind spots": as used in the Exchanging Place scheme.[92]
Other suggestions focused on
safety measures within HGV cabs, including mirrors and sensors.
The "See Me, Save Me" campaign, was established by Kate
Cairns, with the charity Roadpeace, after her sister Eilidh was
killed in a collision with a HGV in London in 2009.[93]
Ms Cairns argued that
There
is much that central government can do
to improve cycling safety through legislation for better standards
for HGVs, the vehicles that pose the greatest risk, and
best practice driver training but also through stipulation and
enforcement of such standards through contractual documents
for publicly
funded construction projects.[94]
Jerry McLaughlin
of the Mineral Products Association, the trade association representing
the aggregates, asphalt, cement, concrete and related industries,
told us that in his view, the sensors and cameras inside cabs
worked and were valued by drivers, adding:
It may be secondary, but it does
have some effect. In terms of giving a driver extra assistance,
we think that either a camera or a sensor is really valuable.[95]
The Mayor of London's Vision for Cycling
in London states that "no lorry should be allowed in London
unless it is fitted with safety equipment to protect cyclists,
and driven by someone fully trained in cycle awareness".[96]
36. Concerns were raised with us that
the technology still had faults to the extent that street furniture
and other vehicles could be picked up by the sensors, raising
the possibility that drivers would learn to ignore the alerts
emanating from the sensors.
[97]
Such a situation could result in cyclists being falsely reassured,
as they would feel that the driver had been informed of their
presence and would act accordingly, while the driver may not have
taken notice of the alert, been overloaded with information or,
as the Minister warned, even been distracted by the alert.[98]
Christopher Snelling, Head of Urban Logistics and Regional Policy
at the Freight Transport Association, cautioned us against the
belief of "one magic fix" from technology that would
solve the issue of HGVs and cycle safety.[99]
37. The Greater London Authority called
for the EU to change directives 96/53/EC and 2007/38/EC which
specify the mirrors required in a lorry's cab. The GLA stated
that "this life-saving change" appeared to be "bogged
down in Brussels".[100]
The Freight Transport Association urged the Government to "promote
the necessary reforms at EU level" to promote redesigning
HGV cabs to improve visibility".[101]
Since we took evidence, the European Parliament has approved these
changes but they await ratification by the member states.[102]
38. Some witnesses argued that mirrors
and sensors to HGVs would be less successful in reducing cyclist
fatalities compared to separating cyclists and large vehicles.[103]
The CTC told us that compared to driver carelessness "a far
more important point is that the lorry itself is an inherently
dangerous machine, whose design is simply not appropriate for
urban streets".[104]
There have been many calls for a ban on HGVs within cities for
certain time periods: the insurance company Aviva suggested that
such a measure could be explored in London.[105]
39. The London Chamber of Commerce and
Industry (LCCI) argued that a ban on HGVs in central London during
peak hours "would be impractical, has no little, or no, international
precedent and would lead to extra costs on business supply chains".[106]
The LCCI added:
Many HGVs are already barred from
using the majority of central London roads between the hours of
9pm and 7am, Monday to Saturday, Saturday afternoon and all day
Sunday under the London Lorry Control Scheme. Further restrictions
on operating at peak hours (7am-10am and 4pm-9pm, for instance),
extending to all HGVs would leave freight with only a 6-hour window
with which to make all deliveries.[107]
Calls for bans on HGVs came from a "fundamental"
misunderstanding of how integral the vehicles were for everyday
life, the Freight Transport Association (FTA) told us. The FTA
added that many accidents happened outside rush hour, and outside
of city centres, but did agree that more could be "done to
get some HGV movements shifted out of the peak periods when most
cyclists are on the road".[108]
Such a move was often prevented by regulations that banned HGVs
at quieter periods.[109]
As a medium-sized HGV carried the equivalent of ten vans' worth
of freight, banning HGVs would, we heard, also lead to a substantial
increase in smaller vans on the road, with an impact on congestion,
safety and the environment.[110]
There was also a danger that HGV and other drivers would assume
that there would be no cyclists on the road outside of the "quiet
hour" when HGVs were banned.[111]
Jack Semple, Director of Policy at the Road Haulage Association,
suggested that a ban on HGVs during certain time periods would
add a minimum of 25% to 30% to haulage costs in London, with unproven
benefit for road safety.[112]
40. Alternatives to a HGV ban were raised
in the written evidence we received. The Greater London Authority
pointed to the development of "quietways"a "cross-London
network of high-quality guided routes created on back streets, through
parks and along canal towpaths for those who prefer to avoid the
main roads".[113]
These roads would have little or no HGV traffic.[114]
We also heard from PIE Mapping, a London small business that has
developed satellite navigation mapping systems to direct HGVs
onto compliant routes around the capital, away from cycle routes
at key times or in certain locations.[115]
41. Witnesses suggested that greater
enforcement of current HGV regulations could improve safety on
the roads. Christopher Snelling, Head of Urban Logistics and Regional
Policy at the Freight Transport Association, reported evidence
about London in particular, that HGV operators "not of the
highest quality" were "overrepresented in the cycling
casualty figures".[116]
Mr Snelling argued that these operators should be removed from
the roads, and welcomed the "increased and targeted"
enforcement on the roads in the previous months.[117]
The Minister echoed these views, and suggested that Vehicle and
Operator Services Agency had previously "not been as active"
in checking HGV vehicles for compliance in London, as it had been
on the motorways, a situation which had now changed.[118]
The Minister added that while the "vast majority of road
haulage companies" had a responsible attitude towards road
safety, there remained a need a "culture of safety across
the industry".[119]
42. We are greatly
concerned by the number of cyclists killed in collisions with
HGVs. The disproportionate number of HGVs involved in collisions
with cyclists demonstrates that the industry must improve its
road safety record. We are particularly concerned by the number
of construction vehicles, such as concrete and tipper lorries,
involved in fatal collisions with cyclists, and the failure of
some haulage companies to follow best practice around cycle safety.
43. We welcome the European Parliament's
approval of changes to the design of HGV cabs to reduce drivers'
blind spots. We call on the Government to ratify these changes
which will improve safety for cyclists and other vulnerable road
users.
44. We are not
persuaded that a ban on HGVs in town centres would be workable
in practice. Instead, we endorse the Minister's call for a culture
of safety for all HGV drivers and support the education of HGV
drivers and cyclists about road safety.
45. We call on the freight industry
to create a culture of safety among HGVs. We recommend the establishment
of a timetable for the development of an industry-wide code of
conduct, and a clear programme of work to promote the enforcement
of HGV safety regulations. The effectiveness of these measures
must be monitored, and demonstrated by a reduction in the proportion
of cyclists' collisions involving HGVs, and by the number of cyclists
injured or killed in collisions with HGVs. If such a reduction
is not forthcoming once safety measures are implemented, we expect
the Department to consider set out the steps it will take to ensure
the safety of cyclists on our roads.
Volumetric mixers
46. We considered evidence on what the
Minister described as the "loophole that needs closing"
of volumetric mixersvehicles that carry stone,
sand, cement and water in compartments and mix the concrete
when on sitewhich are classed as plant and not goods vehicles.
The Minister stated that the Government needed to "take some
action" on volumetric mixers, as the classification as plant
meant they were exempt from a number of regulations in place for
goods vehicles.[120]
The Government is to bring forward consultation on changing the
regulations to close the loophole around volumetric mixers: the
Department clarified the legal status of the vehicles as below.
[
], our view is that volumetric
concrete mixers fall within the definition of "goods vehicle"
as defined in regulation 3 of the Construction and Use Regulations.
We consider these vehicles do not satisfy all the requirements
to be considered "engineering plant" so are goods vehicles
for the purposes of Construction and Use and other legislation
that is dependent on the Construction and Use definition.
However, the definitions relating
to exemptions contained in the Goods Vehicles (Plating &
Testing) Regulations 1988 and the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of
Operators) Regulations 1995 are different, and case law has indicated
that volumetric mixers can take advantage of the exemptions from
these regulations in these cases.
The broad effect of the two exemptions
is that operators of exempted vehicles do not require an operator's
licence and they are not required to subject the vehicles to annual
roadworthiness inspection.[121]
47. The industry representative, Andrew
Collins, disagreed with the Minister and argued against changing
the regulations to include volumetric mixers.[122]
Mr Collins was speaking for the Batched on Site Association, which
represents the estimated 500-600 volumetric units operating in
the UK, He told us that the vehicles were "not actually on
the roads a lot", and suggested that the mixers spent 30%
of their time on the road and 70% on site.[123]
His colleague Tom Baker told us that questions about volumetric
mixers were not part of the debate on cycling safety and had been
brought up "to try to score a point", although he stepped
back from suggestions that the Minister had raised the issue after
lobbying by cyclists.[124]
The Batched on Site Association stressed that there was no evidence
that their vehicles had "contributed badly to cycle safety".[125]
In follow-up written evidence the Association stated that the
mixers were "subject to the majority of regulations other
Heavy Goods Vehicles are subjected to".[126]
The Association sought to emphasise again their belief that the
regulating the vehicles would not "alter cyclist safety".[127]
48. The Department has confirmed that
targeted vehicle inspections by the newly-formed Industrial Heavy
Goods Vehicle Task Force unit had
found that five out of six volumetric mixers stopped "received
immediate prohibitions for mechanical defects".[128]
In addition, three of the stopped vehicles "were also prohibited
because of either overloading or an insecure load".[129]
One such vehicle had some fifteen items listed on the prohibition:
this included "no parking brakes, insecure body,
[and] side-guards about to become detached".[130]
The Batched on Site Association accepted that having prohibitions
given to five out of six volumetric mixers was "not good enough";
although it argued in mitigation that the small sample size meant
that "inferences about the entire sector [could
not] be safely drawn".[131]
The Department emphasised that the high non-compliance rate was
the result of a targeted approach to inspections, but warned of
a "tendency" for volumetric mixers to operate at weights
in excess of regulations and the design weight of the chassis.[132]
The Mineral Products Association warned us that a failure by the
Government to act "to ensure that volumetric plant are regulated
to LGV standards" would have "clear and adverse implications
for road safety and in particular for the safety of vulnerable
road users".[133]
49. We note the
Batched on Site Association's argument that there is no evidence
that volumetric mixers had contributed to cycle accidents. We
do not, however, accept their argument that such vehicles should
not be regulated as goods vehicles. By the Batched on Site Association's
own evidence, the vehicles spend close to a third of their time
on the roads, and should be regulated in the same manner as goods
vehicles.
50. We welcome the Minister's commitment
to closing the loophole around volumetric mixers and ask that
the Department provides an update on progress, as part of their
response to this Report.
88 Department For Transport (CYS0104) Back
89
Department For Transport (CYS0104) Back
90
Richard Armitage, David Hurdle, Adrian Lord and Alex Sully
(CYS 128) Freight Transport Association (CYS 49) Back
91
Q 54 [Christopher Snelling] Back
92
Richard Armitage, David Hurdle, Adrian Lord and Alex Sully (CYS0128)
para 53 Back
93
See Me Save Me (CYS 059) para 1.1, Roadpeace (CYS 56) para 4 Back
94
See Me Save Me (CYS 059) para 3.2 Back
95
Q 59 Back
96
Greater London Authority, The Mayor's Vision for Cycling in London,
March 2013, p 20 Back
97
Q 60 Back
98
Q 59, Q 78 Back
99
Q 60 Back
100
Greater London Authority (CYS 60) Back
101
Freight Transport Association (CYS 49) para 19 Back
102
Commission proposal [ COM(2013)0195- C7-0102/2013-2013/0105(COD)] Back
103
Anthony Cartmell (CYS 42) para 3 Back
104
CTC (CYS 53) para 41 Back
105
Anoop Shah (CYS 18),
Shirley And John Littlefair (CYS0125) para 6, Aviva (CYS 134)
para 11 Back
106
London Chamber Of Commerce And Industry (CYS 27) para 5 Back
107
London Chamber Of Commerce And Industry (CYS 27) para 6 Back
108
Freight Transport Association (CYS 49) para 18 Back
109
Freight Transport Association (CYS 49) para 18 Back
110
Freight Transport Association (CYS 49)
para 9 Back
111
John Trueman (CYS 93) para 15 Back
112
Q 55 Back
113
Greater London Authority (CYS 60) Back
114
Greater London Authority (CYS 60) Back
115
Freddie Talberg, CEO of PIE Mapping (CYS 26) Back
116
Q 54 Back
117
Q 54 Back
118
Q 92 Back
119
Q 98 Back
120
Q 107, Q 109 Back
121
Department For Transport (CYS 146) paras 4-6 Back
122
Q 187 Back
123
Q 188 Back
124
Qs 202, 204 Back
125
Q 208 Back
126
Batched On Site Association (CYS 150) para 3 Back
127
Batched On Site Association (CYS 148) para 7 Back
128
Department For Transport (CYS 146)
para 16 Back
129
Department For Transport (CYS 146)
para 16 Back
130
Department For Transport (CYS 146) para 16 Back
131
Batched On Site Association (CYS 151) Back
132
Department For Transport (CYS 146) para16 Back
133
Mineral Products Association (CYS 48)
Back
|